VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for a property based on market conditions and tenant improvements. The rent was set at £585.00 per month, effective from June 1st, 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value while considering the landlord's consent for tenant improvements.

Topics

rent determinationtenant improvements

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, Section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord would charge in the open market for a similar tenancy. However, certain factors are disregarded when determining the rent, such as the effect of granting a tenancy to a sitting tenant, increases in the value due to improvements made by the tenant without specific obligations, and decreases in value due to the tenant's non-compliance with tenancy terms.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for a property based on market conditions and tenant improvements.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for a property based on market conditions and tenant improvements, excluding unauthorised upgrades. The decision took effect from June 1st, 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/17UF/MNR/2024/0132

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were Middle Cottage, Robin Hood, Whatstandwell, Matlock, Derbyshire, [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £585.00 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1st June 2024

3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 1990 5. Length of the term or rental period monthly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises A Mid terraced bungalow comprising hall lounge, kitchen, one docble bedroom, one single bedroom, shower room, front forecourt, double glazing, central heating. Shared parking

[NAME] of Decision 23/09/2024

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/17UF/MNR/2024/0132 Property : Middle Cottage Robin Hood Whatstandwell Matlock Derbyshire [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent : [redacted] : None Type of application : Application under Section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 referring a notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy to the Tribunal Tribunal members : [NAME] Mrs [NAME] and Date of Determination : The matter was dealt with by a paper determination on 23rd September 2024

DETAILED REASONS

2

BACKGROUND

1. On 6th May 2024, the Applicant (tenant of the above property) referred to the Tribunal, a notice of increase of rent served by the Respondent (landlord of the above property) under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

2. The Respondent’s notice, which proposed a rent of £585.00 per month with effect from 1st June 2024, is dated 25th April 2024.

3. The date the tenancy commenced is stated on the Application Form as being in 1990 and is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The current rent is stated as being £533.00 per month.

INSPECTION

4. The Tribunal inspected the property on Monday 23rd September 2024 in the presence of the Applicant. The property comprises of a single storey mid terraced bungalow of local stone construction surmounted by a pitched tiled roof. It is located in a somewhat isolated rural position with limited nearby shops and local amenities. The property is approached via a steep drive from a roadway of limited width. The drive leads to a communal parking area.

5. Although the front of the property is on the same level as the parking area, due to the slope of the site, the rear elevation is at first floor level with another unrelated dwelling underneath.

6. Briefly the accommodation comprises of entrance hall, lounge, kitchen, one double bedroom, one single bedroom and shower room with a refitted shower provided by the Respondent. The property is small with all the rooms being of a restricted size. Externally the property has a small front forecourt with timber shed provided by the Applicant. There is no rear garden and no garage. There is a shared car parking area of limited size.

7. The property has oil fired central heating and is double glazed.

8. The property was found to be in reasonable general condition although the Tribunal was of the opinion that its limited size, location and lack of outside space would not appeal to some potential tenants.

EVIDENCE

9. The [NAME] received written representations from the Applicant and the Respondent which were copied to the other party.

10. Neither party requested a hearing.

11. In its written submission the Respondent referred to the following comparables:

1) Plaistow Hall Farm Cottage, [POSTCODE] – A smaller property recently let at £650.00pcm. 2) 12 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] – A one bedroom cottage recently let at £850.00pcm. 3) The Common, Crich, [POSTCODE] – This property is currently available at £650.00pcm.

3

4) 23 Gorsey Bank, [POSTCODE] – A smaller property than Middle Cottage but recently modernised. It has one bedroom and has recently been let at £760.00pcm.

12. The Respondent submitted that the open market rental was therefore £750.00pcm less 20% to allow for an Assured Tenancy. It was also submitted that tenant’s improvements could only be taken into account if they were carried out with the consent of the landlord and that neither they, or the previous landlord had given such consent since 2008.

13. It was submitted by the Applicant that he had ‘spent £20,000.00 over the time he had lived at the property. The Tribunal understands that this includes:

i. Repairs to several floors and doors. ii. Some re-plastering. iii. Re-fitted the kitchen. iv. Fitted a log burning stove to the Lounge and fireplace. v. Installed central heating. vi. Laid the front patio and built the front wall.

14. The Applicant confirmed that the Respondent had fitted the UPVC double glazing and UPVC double glazed front door. The Respondent had also rewired the property several years ago.

15. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had fitted a new walk-in shower unit and wash hand basin.

THE LAW

16. In accordance with the terms of section 14 Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

17. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), ignored the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.

THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

18. The Respondent is now proposing a rent of £585.00 per month. The Tribunal determined that an open market rent of £785.00 per month would be appropriate for the property if it was offered with the benefit of carpets, curtains and white goods but these are the property of the Applicant tenant and therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s assessment.

19. Similarly, the central heating is to be disregarded as are the other Tenant’s improvements.

20. The Respondent submits that the landlord had not given consent for the improvements carried out by the tenant. However, the Tribunal does not accept this as their knowledge only goes back to 2008, whereas the Applicant moved into the property in 1990. The Tribunal is also of the opinion that without some of the works having been completed by the tenant, the property would be uninhabitable.

4

21. The Tribunal therefore considered the various monthly deductions to reflect the work carried out by the Applicant tenant as follows:

Central Heating 55.00 Refitted kitchen 35.00 New floors/door/plastering 30.00 Fireplace and stove 10.00 External/general works 30.00 Carpets, curtains and white goods 40.00 Total £200.00

22. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal had regard to the comparable provided by the Respondent and the members' own general knowledge of market rent levels in the area of Derbyshire. The Tribunal concluded that an appropriate market rent for the property would be £585.00 per month.

23. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £585.00 per month.

24. This rent will take effect from 1st June 2024, being the date of the Respondent’s notice.

APPEAL

25. Any appeal against this Decision can only be made on a point of law and must be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Prior to making such an appeal the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of the date of issue of this Decision, (or, if applicable, within 28 days of any decision on a review or application to set aside) identifying the decision to which the appeal relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the appeal, and stating the result sought by the party making the application.

[NAME] First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property)

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • Tenant entitled to rent set according to the Housing Act 1988.
  • Rent determination must reflect open market value adjusted for property condition.
  • Fair rent based on property condition and market value.
  • Rent adjustments for financial hardship and property defects.
  • Rent register under assured periodic tenancy as per section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Rent increase must reflect open market value but not tenant improvements.
  • Rent adjustment excludes the value of tenant improvements.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set the rent for a property at £585.00 per month, effective from June 1st, 2024.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on market conditions and tenant improvements, excluding unauthorised upgrades.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the exclusion of unauthorised tenant improvements.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any improvements are authorised by the landlord.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparables from the area and documentation of tenant improvements mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

Yes, it is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.